Published 23 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1786
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1786

Research

Introduction of shared electronic records: multi-site case study using diffusion of innovation theory

¹ Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW

Objective To explore the introduction of a centrally stored, shared electronic patient record (the summary care record (SCR)) in England and draw wider lessons about the implementation of large scale information technology projects in health care.

Design Multi-site, mixed method case study applying utilisation focused evaluation.

Setting Four early adopter sites for the SCR in England—three in urban areas of relative socioeconomic deprivation and the fourth in a relatively affluent rural area.

Data sources and analysis Data included 250 staff interviews, 1500 hours of ethnographic observation, interviews and focus groups with 170 patients and carers, 2500 pages of correspondence and documentary evidence, and incorporation of relevant surveys and statistics produced by others. These were analysed by using a thematic approach drawing on (and extending) a theoretical model of complex change developed in a previous systematic review.

Main findings The mixed fortunes of the SCR programme in its first year were largely explained by eight interacting influences. The first was the SCR’s material properties (especially technical immaturity and lack of interoperability) and attributes (especially the extent to which potential adopters believed the benefits outweighed the risks). The second was adopters’ concerns (especially about workload and the ethicality of sharing "confidential" information on an implied consent model). The third influence was interpersonal influence (for example, opinion leaders, champions, facilitators), and the fourth was organisational antecedents for innovation (for example past experience with information technology projects, leadership and management capacity, effective data capture systems, slack resources). The fifth was organisational readiness for the SCR (for example, innovation-system fit, tension for change, power balances between supporters and opponents, baseline data quality). The sixth was the implementation process (including the nature of the change model and the extent to which new routines associated with the SCR aligned with existing organisational routines). The seventh influence was the nature and quality of links between different parts of the system, and the final one was the wider environment (especially the political context of the programme).

Conclusion Shared electronic records are not plug-in technologies. They are complex innovations that must be accepted by individual patients and staff and also embedded in organisational and inter-organisational routines. This process is heavily influenced at the micro-level by the material properties of the technology, individuals’ attitudes and concerns, and interpersonal influence; at the meso-level by organisational antecedents, readiness, and operational aspects of implementation; and at the macro-level by institutional and socio-political forces. A case study approach and multi-level theoretical analysis can illuminate how contextual factors shape, enable, and constrain new, technology supported models of patient care.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

What have we really learnt?

Michael Tremblay
BMJ 2008 337: a2595. [Extract] [Full Text]

Disruptiveness of Google Health

Suparna Das
BMJ 2008 337: a2596. [Extract] [Full Text]

Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study

Trisha Greenhalgh, Gary W Wood, Tanja Bratan, Katja Stramer, and Susan Hinder
BMJ 2008 336: 1290-1295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The NHS programme for information technology

Justin Keen
BMJ 2006 333: 3-4. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Lessons from the central Hampshire electronic health record pilot project: evaluation of the electronic health record for supporting patient care and secondary analysis

Hugh Sanderson, Trina Adams, Martin Budden, and Chris Hoare
BMJ 2004 328: 875-878. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• van Empel, I. W.H., Nelen, W. L.D.M., Tepe, E. T., van Laarhoven, E. A.P., Verhaak, C. M., Kremer, J. A.M. (2009). Weaknesses, strengths and needs in fertility care according to patients. Hum Reprod 0: dep362v1-dep362 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Tremblay, M. (2008). What have we really learnt?. BMJ 337: a2595-a2595 [Full text]  
• Das, S. (2008). Disruptiveness of Google Health. BMJ 337: a2596-a2596 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

what have we really learned?

Michael Tremblay
bmj.com, 24 Oct 2008 [Full text]

Google Health as a disruptive technology

Suparna Das, et al.
bmj.com, 28 Oct 2008 [Full text]

Sleeping with the enemy - or riding the tensions?

Trisha Greenhalgh, et al.
bmj.com, 31 Oct 2008 [Full text]

Simple SCR in everyday use in 2008?

Nigel J Masters
bmj.com, 1 Nov 2008 [Full text]

Socio-technical Pull for Electronic Records: Making it Happen

Chris Clegg, et al.
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>